Saturday, March 11th 2023

AMD Shows First Ryzen 7 7800X3D Game Benchmarks, Up To 24% Faster Than Core i9-13900K

AMD has finally released some of the official gaming benchmark for its 8-core Ryzen 7 7800X3D processor that should be coming in April, and, now that AMD has released some of the first gaming benchmarks, it appears that it outperforms the Intel Core i9-13900K by up to 24 percent. Officially, AMD is putting the Ryzen 7 7800X3D against the Intel Core i7-13700K, leaving the Core i9-13900K and the Core i9-13900KS to its 16- and 12-core Ryzen 7000X3D SKUs.

Although some of its Ryzen 7000X3D series chips are available as of February 28th, namely the Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Ryzen 9 7900X3D, AMD has pushed back the launch of its 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 7800X3D. This was quite a surprise and a big letdown, especially due to its tempting $449 price tag. One of the reasons might be the fact that the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is simply too good and might put a lot of pressure on even AMD's own SKUs, let alone Intel's lineup.
The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D has yet another significant advantage compared to the rest of the Ryzen 7000X3D series, as while the 12-core and 16-core SKUs are a multi-chip module with two CCDs, and feature an asymmetric chiplet design, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D has a rather standard design, with single 8-core CCD with 3D V-Cache.

The Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Ryzen 9 7900X3D have two CCDs with only one CCD with 3D Vertical Cache, which means it relies on software control, or the 3D Vertical Cache Optimizer Driver, to ensure that workload from games are directed to the CCD with the 3D Vertical Cache using dynamic "preferred cores" flagging for the Windows OS scheduler. You can find more details in our Ryzen 9 7950X3D review.

AMD has released two new slides, putting the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D against the Intel Core 9 13900K in four games, Rainbow Six Siege, Total War: Three Kingdoms, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Horizon Zero Dawn. In all four, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is ahead of the Core i9-13900K, by anywhere between 13 and 24 percent. The second slide puts the Ryzen 7 7800X3D against the previous generation AMD Ryzen 5800X3D in Rainbow Six Siege, Warhammer: Dawn of War III, CS:GO, and DOTA 2, where the new generation is anywhere between 21 and 30 percent faster.
If these benchmarks turn out to be even close to painting the realistic picture, as these are just three games handpicked by AMD, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, priced at $449, might be a big winner for AMD, and becoming one of the best sellers as it managed to outperform Intel's $579 priced Core i9-13900K SKU, while being $130 less expensive. The Core i7-13700K, which is what AMD is actually putting the Ryzen 7 7800X3D against, is priced at $405.

Of course, these are handpicked benchmarks provided by AMD so take them with a grain of salt, and we would rather wait to check out these performance figures by ourselves when it officially launches on April 6th. In the meantime, you can check out our Ryzen 7800X3D preview, which is a simulation of the performance with a single CCD enabled.
Source: Toms Hardware
Add your own comment

85 Comments on AMD Shows First Ryzen 7 7800X3D Game Benchmarks, Up To 24% Faster Than Core i9-13900K

#76
mäggäri
WastelandIt goes without saying that different test suites will yield different results. My point wasn't, "AMD is LYING," or, "I MUST DEFEND INTEL's SACRED HONOR!" I don't care to enlist in the eternal (and eternally tedious) corporate-fanboy war. My point was that we don't need AMD's PR campaign to give us a glimpse at the 7800x3d's performance profile. We already know that in the general case, it will not perform anywhere near "24% faster than the 13900k." But sure, there are always outliers. If you happen to adore a particular game that massively favors one architecture over another, then buy accordingly, averages be damned.

Benchmarks aside, the main thrust of my comment is that no CPU priced at $450 is particularly appealing for a gaming use case. Sure, if money is no object, or if you're a highly competitive twitch gamer who craves stratospheric frame rates in CPU-bound situations, then the 7800x3d might be for you, but most gamers will be vastly better off buying a $200-300 CPU instead, and putting the extra money towards a beefier GPU (or really towards anything else; pretend that Lisa Su bought you two weeks worth of groceries or w/e, lol). Future proofing doesn't really work as a justification here either, because if you buy into AM5 with a cheaper CPU now, then later you can grab a relatively inexpensive (say, Zen6) drop-in upgrade that will likely spank the 7800x3d--or you can just grab a 5800x3d or an i5 now and skip AM5 entirely. It isn't as if current mid-range CPUs will become obsolete for gaming any time soon.

A Ryzen 5 7600 will get you ~80% of the 7800x3d's gaming performance, for roughly half the money, today--and probably more performance in practice, once we invest the difference in other components. So yeah, I'm impressed by the tech, but until the price comes down on these Zen 4 x3d chips, I don't think they really move the needle in the gaming market. As noted earlier, even the 5800x3d didn't exactly rocket to the top of recommended lists until it dropped from its initial $450 MSRP, and that chip had (still has) a huge positional advantage, given the high number of existing AM4 owners looking for a final upgrade to their aging platform. There is, in other words, a built-in $200+ discount for large swathes of the 5800x3d's target audience. Its Zen4 successor has a much tougher row to hoe, value-wise.
"AMD marketing style" reminds me of these television evangelists, btw good humor videos in youtube. :D Oh well, in the end it's not only AMD I guess, but all tech-companies and their marketing, creating hype... Which is often translates in hat full of shit for customers. :nutkick: Still some people are ready to believe in whatever.
Posted on Reply
#77
TumbleGeorge
mäggäri"AMD marketing style" reminds me of these television evangelists, btw good humor videos in youtube. :D Oh well, in the end it's not only AMD I guess, but all tech-companies and their marketing, creating hype... Which is often translates in hat full of shit for customers. :nutkick: Still some people are ready to believe in whatever.
It's a bit off topic. But I wonder how much cheaper the CPUs; GPUs and other components would be if international marketing events were not done and paid for, including attendance at various international trade shows and the cost of marketing through media and other resources, including online distribution of advertising and of course if marketing departments were not maintained with all the inherent costs of offices, equipment, salaries, heating, fitness, pools, supplies...
Posted on Reply
#78
Garrus
WastelandIt goes without saying that different test suites will yield different results. My point wasn't, "AMD is LYING," or, "I MUST DEFEND INTEL's SACRED HONOR!" I don't care to enlist in the eternal (and eternally tedious) corporate-fanboy war. My point was that we don't need AMD's PR campaign to give us a glimpse at the 7800x3d's performance profile. We already know that in the general case, it will not perform anywhere near "24% faster than the 13900k." But sure, there are always outliers. If you happen to adore a particular game that massively favors one architecture over another, then buy accordingly, averages be damned.

Benchmarks aside, the main thrust of my comment is that no CPU priced at $450 is particularly appealing for a gaming use case. Sure, if money is no object, or if you're a highly competitive twitch gamer who craves stratospheric frame rates in CPU-bound situations, then the 7800x3d might be for you, but most gamers will be vastly better off buying a $200-300 CPU instead, and putting the extra money towards a beefier GPU (or really towards anything else; pretend that Lisa Su bought you two weeks worth of groceries or w/e, lol). Future proofing doesn't really work as a justification here either, because if you buy into AM5 with a cheaper CPU now, then later you can grab a relatively inexpensive (say, Zen6) drop-in upgrade that will likely spank the 7800x3d--or you can just grab a 5800x3d or an i5 now and skip AM5 entirely. It isn't as if current mid-range CPUs will become obsolete for gaming any time soon.

A Ryzen 5 7600 will get you ~80% of the 7800x3d's gaming performance, for roughly half the money, today--and probably more performance in practice, once we invest the difference in other components. So yeah, I'm impressed by the tech, but until the price comes down on these Zen 4 x3d chips, I don't think they really move the needle in the gaming market. As noted earlier, even the 5800x3d didn't exactly rocket to the top of recommended lists until it dropped from its initial $450 MSRP, and that chip had (still has) a huge positional advantage, given the high number of existing AM4 owners looking for a final upgrade to their aging platform. There is, in other words, a built-in $200+ discount for large swathes of the 5800x3d's target audience. Its Zen4 successor has a much tougher row to hoe, value-wise.
I have a Ryzen 7600 myself, as clearly the cheapest over-clockable CPU is always the best choice for gaming. Intel left the chat when they released the 13600k for $80 CAD more than the Ryzen option, and it is slower in gaming also.

"no CPU priced at $450 is particularly appealing for a gaming use case" - you say this but you know the vast majority of i9 CPUs are bought for gaming though, if it is good for Intel, the 7800X3D is $200 less and faster for gaming, it absolutely makes sense, it is all about the high refresh rate gamer
Posted on Reply
#79
wheresmycar
mäggäri"AMD marketing style" reminds me of these television evangelists, btw good humor videos in youtube. :D Oh well, in the end it's not only AMD I guess, but all tech-companies and their marketing, creating hype... Which is often translates in hat full of shit for customers. :nutkick: Still some people are ready to believe in whatever.
television evangelist or not, they've certainly caught the markets attention (incl. me), pulled ahead trading blows and completely took me by surprise with super snug efficiency. I expected more from Intel but i guess maybe next time round.
TumbleGeorgeIt's a bit off topic. But I wonder how much cheaper the CPUs; GPUs and other components would be if international marketing events were not done and paid for, including attendance at various international trade shows and the cost of marketing through media and other resources, including online distribution of advertising and of course if marketing departments were not maintained with all the inherent costs of offices, equipment, salaries, heating, fitness, pools, supplies...
If saving costs from marketing somehow maintains current demand levels... would NVIDIA/AMD/INTEL (esp.) offer better value products? Nahhhh!! We'll still be stuck in some sort of post-pandamemic-price-apocalytpic day light profiteering robbery with NVIDIA steering the wheel.
Posted on Reply
#80
mäggäri
GarrusI have a Ryzen 7600 myself, as clearly the cheapest over-clockable CPU is always the best choice for gaming. Intel left the chat when they released the 13600k for $80 CAD more than the Ryzen option, and it is slower in gaming also.

"no CPU priced at $450 is particularly appealing for a gaming use case" - you say this but you know the vast majority of i9 CPUs are bought for gaming though, if it is good for Intel, the 7800X3D is $200 less and faster for gaming, it absolutely makes sense, it is all about the high refresh rate gamer
Posted on Reply
#81
Garrus
mäggäri
Said many times Techpowerup messed up all their reviews with the wrong ram and a limited game selection. 6000C30 or 5600C28. Ryzen 7600 is faster in gaming with $130 32GB ram.
mäggäri
This is what happens when you use the same ram for both. Jarrod's Tech was one of the few reviewers that used the good ram for both CPUs. 25 games here. Kind of conclusive.


Posted on Reply
#82
mäggäri
GarrusSaid many times Techpowerup messed up all their reviews with the wrong ram and a limited game selection. 6000C30 or 5600C28. Ryzen 7600 is faster in gaming with $130 32GB ram.



This is what happens when you use the same ram for both. Jarrod's Tech was one of the few reviewers that used the good ram for both CPUs. 25 games here. Kind of conclusive.


Okai, need to re-check GN after waking up, now back to bed. :sleep:
Posted on Reply
#83
spnidel
Ayhamb99Precisely why i think arguing about which CPU is better for gaming is pointless in my honest opinion
what? if i'm looking to buy a cpu with my main intent of playing games and if, at 720p, on average, one cpu gets 250 fps and the other gets 500 fps, then for gaming i'm better off getting the one which achieves 500 fps, because it shows that it has a ton of resources in the tank for future games and/or higher refresh rates
then there's the question of 1% lows

it's not pointless at all (well, arguing IS pointless, but picking the best cpu for gaming (if that's what you're after) is not pointless :) )
and the differences will be even less noticeable with the GPUs that people are more likely to use (3080s and 6800/6900 XTs.)
that makes no sense. pairing a slow cpu with a fast gpu and a high refresh rate monitor will leave you bottlenecked cpu-side and you won't have a good time, and also - people that buy 3080s (or faster) don't buy a 4k60hz display. they buy 4k144hz+
spoilers: you can be cpu-limited at 4k, too
Posted on Reply
#84
mäggäri
spnidelwhat? if i'm looking to buy a cpu with my main intent of playing games and if, at 720p, on average, one cpu gets 250 fps and the other gets 500 fps, then for gaming i'm better off getting the one which achieves 500 fps, because it shows that it has a ton of resources in the tank for future games and/or higher refresh rates
then there's the question of 1% lows

it's not pointless at all (well, arguing IS pointless, but picking the best cpu for gaming (if that's what you're after) is not pointless :) )


that makes no sense. pairing a slow cpu with a fast gpu and a high refresh rate monitor will leave you bottlenecked cpu-side and you won't have a good time, and also - people that buy 3080s (or faster) don't buy a 4k60hz display. they buy 4k144hz+
spoilers: you can be cpu-limited at 4k, too
1% low's (more constant drops than 0.1%) are great along the AVG. The max doesn't matter too much.
Posted on Reply
#85
ValenOne
GarrusSaid many times Techpowerup messed up all their reviews with the wrong ram and a limited game selection. 6000C30 or 5600C28. Ryzen 7600 is faster in gaming with $130 32GB ram.



This is what happens when you use the same ram for both. Jarrod's Tech was one of the few reviewers that used the good ram for both CPUs. 25 games here. Kind of conclusive.


AMD's Zen 4 CPU has higher sensitivity with memory latency when compared to its Intel counterpart.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jun 13th, 2024 20:03 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts